mgo.licio.us

"The face of the operation is Briatore (referred to exclusively in the film by his colleagues and angry, chanting detractors as "Flavio"), an anthropomorphic radish who spends most of his time at QPR plotting to fire all of the managers."

At press time, Harbaugh had sent Michigan’s athletic department an envelope containing a heavily annotated seating chart, a list of the 63,000 seat views he had found unsatisfactory, and a glowing 70-page report on section 25, row 12, seat 9, which he claimed is “exactly what the great sport of football is all about.”

"Legendary" ex-coaches want to pick BCS matchups

Bobby Bowden and a group of "legendary" ex-coaches think they can be more impartial than current coaches in deciding which teams get the benefit of playing in the BCS bowl games. As John Cooper is a member of this "Legends group", it's fair to say it's probably open to pretty much any guy who ever coached college football.....ever.

All the funniness and Bowden's increasing senility aside though, it is probably a better alternative than the current coaches for this reason:

"This Legends group is about as real a group as you can have," Bowden told ESPN.com's Joe Schad. "I voted for years as an active coach. But what you're really doing then is putting yourself and your conference in position. I used to have an idea of what was going on around me. But now I really have an idea of what's going on around the country. When we're retired, we all have a better view."

I know these guys still want to feel "useful" after they retire, but if I had Bowden's money, I would make myself "useful" by over-tipping as many country club personnel as I could have contact with in one day.

yeah.....no. I admit logically it makes sence they would have a better picture of the national landscape, but there also old and set in there ways...the boise states of the world would be even more screwed

I'd think part of the definition of being a "legendary coach" would be having never been fired.

Actually, that does point to the problem. Just what the hell qualifies as legendary? Joe Paterno might have been the most unanimous legendary coach ever...until it all fell apart when the truth came out.

I like the idea of picking the teams based on what they actually do, and using the three top-rated conference champions plus a wild card team makes sense. The process gets awfully subjective and this group would be lobbied just as others were/are. If Alabama cannot beat LSU at Alabama it doesn't deserve to be in the championship game even if it might win a rematch. (And if it so damn good that it gets the +1 spot, well, then it is in the playoff.) This does not totally eliminate subjectivity, but it corrals it somewhat better than other proposals. I sure do not want Lou Holtz and Bobby Bowden and John Cooper picking the teams that play.

No system will ever work particularly well. You can't have a good system for determining a playoff in a pool of teams that is 100-plus large. I'd like to go back to the pre-'98 system and forget about the national championship, which isn't that important anyway.

I agree. There is never going to be a 100% fool proof way of deciding the top 1, or 2, or 4 teams in the country. This isn't the NFL, where there are 32 teams and its easier to compare teams that haven't played each other. Whatever system they decide on, Michigan's focus should remain on winning the Big Ten. Winning your conference is the only thing you can control in College Football.

“There’s no greater feeling than moving a man from point A to point B against his will." - Russ Grimm

The minority. I'm with the both of you, and have been since ~2000/2001, and especially since 2006. This whole national championship idea is grossly overrated this day n' age. We college football fans think our opinions really matter and to be honest they don't. Playoff this, Plus-1 that, "keep traditions" this, uber-conference expansion that; it's all fun to talk about (and part of what makes the college football game so great) but it's all for nought.

I think I realized this back in high school back in the early part of the millenium, when it seemed college football and college football chatter was reallllly picking up. I remember when the whole playoff chatter first started (well, when I first started hearing it and talking about it with other fans); I hated the idea. I liked NCAA football more than the NFL and much of it was because of the "post-season". Now the playoff idea, or whatever the hell we're going to call the NCAA post-season championship game(s), isn't that evil. I don't quite endorse it, but it's...growing on me?

I've grown up over the years, learned what really goes into NCAA football (Orange Jackets with Corporate logos on them worn by old creepy men, coaching changes every 3 years, TV Contracts, schools leaving "conferences" because another school is a big bully, etc. etc., basically $$$ everything), and now I just watch the stuff, read blogs about the greatest College Football School, cheer them on, and continue to learn more and more about a game I love. I don't debate and talk about all of the aforementioned NCAA "playoffs". It's worn me out and frankly I understand I hold an opinion that doesn't mean a damn thing. I own it, will display it every now and then (how bout' now?) but to debate the issue anymore is soul-corroding.

Beat Ohio State, win the BigTen title, take a trip for a fun bowl game (Rose Bowl's the goal, I suppose), and cherish the memories of these boys becoming men in Michigan uniforms. If some inane "National Champion" title is added to a season every now and then, so be it; cool beans. I remember 1997, it was awesome, but so were many of the other years since. Go Blue.

then this might be the B1G's new way of honoring legends and name the committee after 7 people.

Older coaches still sometimes see the game the way it was when they were winning titles, like Holtz and Notre Dame. Even Bowden probbly still thinks FSU is everything CBS says they are each year. Maybe having a Bowden on the committee would be ok, but an entire committee of coaches is ridiculous. Not only could they show preference to their colleges and conferences, but their coaching trees.

Its not that bad of an idea, although unfortunately "legendary" ex-coaches are generally in their twilight years and I wouldn't necessarily want to rely on people in their 70s and 80s. It is certainly better than giving current coaches a say despite the inherent bias and the fact that while preparing their own team to play, there is no way they can watch any other games.

However it winds up, I'm hoping the selection committee meets every week starting after say, week 6 and publishes their top 6 every week. Screw the top 25 or any other number that is not relevant to the final number. Debate weekly over the six best teams and then justify why they are there. After six games, the pre-season hype should have worn off and you will have enough games played to legitimately start debating who is the best team

Wasn't he inducted into the NCAA HOF recently? I'd guess that could qualify him as legendary. Not that this little tidbit has any sway over the stupidity of Bowden's proposal, but let's not lessen UM's domination of him by not giving him his due.

The last people on earth I would want to serve as an impartial and fair jury are former major college head coaches (especially legendary ones). Would you want known former liars and cheats like Barry Switzer, Pat Dye, Don James, Lou Holtz, Bobby Bowden or Jim Tressel performing this function in the future? Being a successful former big time D-I head coach usually requires a person to be ruthless with borderline (to sometimes complete lack) ethics. Not the qualifications I would look for in a selection committee.

I think anyone watching Lou Holtz on ESPN can see how unbiased he is.

Check out this small USA Today collection of famous NCAA scandals. Guess how many Legends Poll participicants are involved in them? Bobby Bowden, Don James, & Pat Dye.

I'm pretty sure that the coaches poll is what is wrong with the current BCS formula. When you have coaches rating Michigan 4th in 06 or Oklahoma State 5th or 6th last year is evidence of its corruption. And now we want hand the responsibility over to a more senile and biased version of the coaches poll?

As much as the computer ranking system is maligned, at least if the formula was understood the outcome from the program could be understood. Then the debate can be about the algorithms and how to make them better.

But if we have a star chamber of "ledgendary coaches" then all bets are off trying to figure out the internal workings of that. Unless the selection meetings were open and recorded. But of course that won't happen.

Frankly I think we should just rank teams based on whether (a) the state touches at least four of the five Great Lakes, (b) the team name refers to a ferocious carnivore, and (c) the state name starts with "M" and has exactly three syllables.

""No person is better equipped to handle the pressure that would go with being on that committee than an ex-coach," - R.C. Slocum, in the article

I would imagine that Slocum would do everything possible to avoid sending Texas A&M to the Cotton Bowl, because that never worked out for them when he was there....

I trust the breadth of knowledge of the game that would be on such a committee, but I imagine many of them would have been removed from the game for long enough that their view might not match the current state of the game. It would make me feel more comfortable if the members of any selection committee were people who deal with the game as it is, not as it was at one time, sort of like MBB.

"Funny isn't it, how naughty dentists always make that one fatal mistake."

I really, really, really do not like the idea of a panel deciding. I don't care who the reps are. It just throws the doors open for corruption, conspiracy, and a laundry list of potential problems and conflicts of interest. This could be the worst idea I've heard yet.